DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 9, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
As directed by the amendment received on July 9, 2026, claims 1-2, 11, 13-14, 19, 26, and 29-30 have been amended. Claims 8-10, 12, 18, 24, and 31 have been canceled. Claim 32 is new. Accordingly, claims 1-7, 11, 13-17, 19-23, 25-30, and 32 are currently pending in this application with claims 19-23 and 25-28 being withdrawn from further consideration.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed with the written response received on July 9, 2026, have been considered and an action on the merits follows. Any objections and rejections previously put forth in the Office Action dated , are hereby withdrawn unless specifically noted below.
Examiner’s Comment
Applicant is respectfully reminded of the proper manner of making amendments to the claims in future correspondence. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived (See 37 CFR 1.121(C)(2)). In addition, no claim text should be presented for any claim in the claim listing with the status of “canceled” (See 37 CFR 1.121(C)(4)). Examiner notes that at least some of the claim amendments to claims were improperly indicated by Applicant in the response. As a courtesy to Applicant and in an effort to promote compact prosecution, the claim amendments have been entered and considered despite use of improper notation. Applicant is advised that any future correspondence having improperly indicated amendments will be met with a Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Canada on December 13, 2022. It is noted, however, that Applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CA 3,184,003 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
At line 4, “comprising” should read “, the body sling comprising”
At line 8, “to ensure” should read “ensure”
At line 9, “to accommodate” should read “accommodate”
At line 11, “the portions” should read “the plurality of portions of the fabric material”
At lines 14-15, “adjacent portions of the body sling” should read “adjacent portions of the plurality of portions of the fabric material”
At line 24, “a length of the body sling” should read “the length of the body sling”
Claim 17 is objected to because at lines 1-2, “being adaptable to a weight of the abdomen being increased by a growing fetus, wherein the wearer is a pregnant woman” should read “being configured to adapt to a weight of the abdomen being increase by a growing fetus, wherein the wearer is a pregnant woman”.
Claim 30 is objected to because at lines 2-3, “the shoulder portion” should read “the shoulder portion of the body sling”.
Claim 32 is objected to because at line 1, “a body of the wearer” should read “the body of the wearer”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7, 11, 13-17, 29-30, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the ends” at line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “the first and second ends”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “the sling” at lines 4 and 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “the body sling”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “a plurality of portions made of the fabric material that seamlessly varies along the length of the sling, the portions having different elastic properties and being configured to:” at lines 5-6. It is unclear in what way the portions or fabric material varies along the length of the body sling. Additionally, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the portions” in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “a plurality of portions of the fabric material seamlessly extending along the length of the body sling, the plurality of portions having varying elastic properties along the length of the body sling and being configured to:”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the pelvic portion being positioned at a first position in a suprapubic or hypogastric region supporting a weight of the belly of the wearer” at lines 1-3. It is unclear if the limitation is attempting to claim regions of a wearer or regions of the body sling. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “the pelvic portion of the body sling being configured to be positioned at a first position in a suprapubic or hypogastric region of the wearer to support a weight of the belly of the wearer”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “wherein the fabric material of the body sling is more supple in portions of the body sling to be worn on the axillary region of the wearer than in other portions of the body sling” at lines 1-3. Due to inconsistent terminology, it is unclear if the recited portions are meant to refer back to the previously introduced plurality of portions or some other portions. Additionally, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the axillary region” in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “wherein at least one portion of the plurality of portions of the fabric material are more supple than other portions of the plurality of portions of the fabric material, the at least one portion of the plurality of portions of the fabric material being configured to be worn in an axillary region of the wearer”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the fastening buckle comprising a detachable buckle allowing adjustment of the length of the worn body sling” at lines 1-2. It is unclear if the limitation is attempting to recite a functional limitation or not. Additionally, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the worn body sling” in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “the fastening buckle comprising a detachable buckle configured for allowing adjustment of the length of the body sling when worn”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claims 2-7, 11, 13-17, 29-30, and 31 are also rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claim 2, as best can be understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the pelvic portion being positioned at a first position in a suprapubic or hypogastric region supporting a weight of the belly of the wearer” at lines 1-3. In order to overcome this rejection, it is suggested that the limitation instead read “the pelvic portion of the body sling being configured to be positioned at a first position in a suprapubic or hypogastric region of the wearer to support a weight of the belly of the wearer”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7, 11, 13-17, 29-30, and 32, as best can be understood, would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph as well as the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Hansen (USPN 8,113,911) teaches a body sling for supporting and distributing a load of an abdomen of a wearer, the body sling comprising pelvic and a shoulder portions, a crossing of the body sling, and a fastening buckle. Toso (US 2023/0141821) teaches a body sling made of fabric material and having varying elastic properties along the length of the body sling. That said, Hansen and/or Toso do not teach a body sling that is a continuous, single piece of fabric material. Hansen instead teaches different strap portions connected together. Modification of Hansen and/or Toso to meet the limitations of the claim would constitute hindsight reconstruction based on Applicant’s disclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R MARCHEWKA whose telephone number is (571) 272-4038. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:00PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CLINTON T OSTRUP can be reached at (571) 272-5559. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW R MARCHEWKA/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights